Jack Flash Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20101130/payments-to-agents-200910_2281670_2233721 If this figure is after signing about 10 players we surely can't have paid out too much more this summer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm not really au fait with the day-to-day running of your club over the last few years, but taking this from that Swiss Ramble blog: http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5264/newcastlepl.jpg This covering the years up to relegation, there's an operating loss of 25-35M per year over the last three, partially covered by player sales. We can expect the wage bill to have been slashed dramatically, and I think that media income will have increased. However, as Wallace says, commercial revenues will have dropped. It's not inconceivable that you are still not doing much more than breaking even. Am I missing something? Even halving the wage bill in 2009 (i.e. going from 71M to 35.5M) would not have covered the operating loss. Just compare with Sunderland: http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/4231/sunderlandpandl.jpg They lost a f***ing fortune in the last two years, and relied on Ellis Short to bail them out. I presume that Ashley is not prepared to do the same (and the Fair Play rules will back that up), so the idea that the Carroll money would just go to balance the books is not entirely unlikely. Apologies if I've entirely missed the point. Wullie, you asked how much debt all the other clubs in the world must be building up - the answer is, a f***ing obscene amount. Just in the Premier League, only four clubs made a profit in 2010 according to Deloitte, and two of those were essentially break-even. In that climate, speculating to accumulate becomes impossible. So do you see 16 of 20 Premier League clubs going to the wall? Do you think your own Spurs will go bust because you've spent money and bought good players? Your point is perfectly valid, they are running up debt but that's football at the moment and that debt will improve them on the field. If Modric goes will you be happy if that money subsequently vanishes into nowhere and you start scrabbling round for free transfers and release clauses, and the noises out of Spurs are that your aim is to finish 10th? Saying you've got a plan to keep the wage bill down and not be stung for transfers is all very well in isolation but football clubs don't exist in isolation, they exist, in both our cases, in a league with 19 other teams who will all be spending money to achieve success on the pitch. Do you see our "model" as one which is likely to get us back to Europe and back to the Champions League? I'm not sure sunderland's accounts are good to compare with because they're s*** as well. At the end of the day, I don't care about finances or figures or accounts, all I care about is success at NUFC, on the field. All the financial stability in the world means nothing to me if we finish 10th every year. have a look at the spurs figures on the same site. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 We might need it for January. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 At the end of the day, I don't care about finances or figures or accounts, all I care about is success at NUFC, on the field. All the financial stability in the world means nothing to me if we finish 10th every year. They obviously believe they can achieve both. Improve us as a side, whilst also sorting our financial situation. Ofcourse they will hope for better than 10th they are just limiting fans expectations incase it doesnt go to plan. The choice they have is to either sign big players on big wages & increase our future expenses beyond what we currently make, in the hope that those players will bring in success that will then increase our turnover. Or to sign potentially better players than we have now & not increase our future expenses beyond what we can cover, again believing that those players will bring in success that will then increase our turnover. One option is obviously much nicer for an owner. It looks like Ashley sees our ability to scout good players for cheap as a way to achieve both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm not really au fait with the day-to-day running of your club over the last few years, but taking this from that Swiss Ramble blog: http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5264/newcastlepl.jpg This covering the years up to relegation, there's an operating loss of 25-35M per year over the last three, partially covered by player sales. We can expect the wage bill to have been slashed dramatically, and I think that media income will have increased. However, as Wallace says, commercial revenues will have dropped. It's not inconceivable that you are still not doing much more than breaking even. Am I missing something? Even halving the wage bill in 2009 (i.e. going from 71M to 35.5M) would not have covered the operating loss. Just compare with Sunderland: http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/4231/sunderlandpandl.jpg They lost a fucking fortune in the last two years, and relied on Ellis Short to bail them out. I presume that Ashley is not prepared to do the same (and the Fair Play rules will back that up), so the idea that the Carroll money would just go to balance the books is not entirely unlikely. Apologies if I've entirely missed the point. Wullie, you asked how much debt all the other clubs in the world must be building up - the answer is, a fucking obscene amount. Just in the Premier League, only four clubs made a profit in 2010 according to Deloitte, and two of those were essentially break-even. In that climate, speculating to accumulate becomes impossible. So do you see 16 of 20 Premier League clubs going to the wall? Do you think your own Spurs will go bust because you've spent money and bought good players? Your point is perfectly valid, they are running up debt but that's football at the moment and that debt will improve them on the field. If Modric goes will you be happy if that money subsequently vanishes into nowhere and you start scrabbling round for free transfers and release clauses, and the noises out of Spurs are that your aim is to finish 10th? Saying you've got a plan to keep the wage bill down and not be stung for transfers is all very well in isolation but football clubs don't exist in isolation, they exist, in both our cases, in a league with 19 other teams who will all be spending money to achieve success on the pitch. Do you see our "model" as one which is likely to get us back to Europe and back to the Champions League? I'm not sure sunderland's accounts are good to compare with because they're shit as well. At the end of the day, I don't care about finances or figures or accounts, all I care about is success at NUFC, on the field. All the financial stability in the world means nothing to me if we finish 10th every year. It's crazy to take such a casual attitude towards debt. If you continue to run at a loss, your debt will increase and likewise the interest payments. At some stage, you have to start balancing the books. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm not really au fait with the day-to-day running of your club over the last few years, but taking this from that Swiss Ramble blog: http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5264/newcastlepl.jpg This covering the years up to relegation, there's an operating loss of 25-35M per year over the last three, partially covered by player sales. We can expect the wage bill to have been slashed dramatically, and I think that media income will have increased. However, as Wallace says, commercial revenues will have dropped. It's not inconceivable that you are still not doing much more than breaking even. Am I missing something? Even halving the wage bill in 2009 (i.e. going from 71M to 35.5M) would not have covered the operating loss. Just compare with Sunderland: http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/4231/sunderlandpandl.jpg They lost a fucking fortune in the last two years, and relied on Ellis Short to bail them out. I presume that Ashley is not prepared to do the same (and the Fair Play rules will back that up), so the idea that the Carroll money would just go to balance the books is not entirely unlikely. Apologies if I've entirely missed the point. Wullie, you asked how much debt all the other clubs in the world must be building up - the answer is, a fucking obscene amount. Just in the Premier League, only four clubs made a profit in 2010 according to Deloitte, and two of those were essentially break-even. In that climate, speculating to accumulate becomes impossible. So do you see 16 of 20 Premier League clubs going to the wall? Do you think your own Spurs will go bust because you've spent money and bought good players? Your point is perfectly valid, they are running up debt but that's football at the moment and that debt will improve them on the field. If Modric goes will you be happy if that money subsequently vanishes into nowhere and you start scrabbling round for free transfers and release clauses, and the noises out of Spurs are that your aim is to finish 10th? Saying you've got a plan to keep the wage bill down and not be stung for transfers is all very well in isolation but football clubs don't exist in isolation, they exist, in both our cases, in a league with 19 other teams who will all be spending money to achieve success on the pitch. Do you see our "model" as one which is likely to get us back to Europe and back to the Champions League? I'm not sure sunderland's accounts are good to compare with because they're shit as well. At the end of the day, I don't care about finances or figures or accounts, all I care about is success at NUFC, on the field. All the financial stability in the world means nothing to me if we finish 10th every year. It's crazy to take such a casual attitude towards debt. If you continue to run at a loss, your debt will increase and likewise the interest payments. At some stage, you have to start balancing the books. At some stage? We've been doing it for four years now. When do you think our competitors will begin to do it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm not really au fait with the day-to-day running of your club over the last few years, but taking this from that Swiss Ramble blog: http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5264/newcastlepl.jpg This covering the years up to relegation, there's an operating loss of 25-35M per year over the last three, partially covered by player sales. We can expect the wage bill to have been slashed dramatically, and I think that media income will have increased. However, as Wallace says, commercial revenues will have dropped. It's not inconceivable that you are still not doing much more than breaking even. Am I missing something? Even halving the wage bill in 2009 (i.e. going from 71M to 35.5M) would not have covered the operating loss. Just compare with Sunderland: http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/4231/sunderlandpandl.jpg They lost a f***ing fortune in the last two years, and relied on Ellis Short to bail them out. I presume that Ashley is not prepared to do the same (and the Fair Play rules will back that up), so the idea that the Carroll money would just go to balance the books is not entirely unlikely. Apologies if I've entirely missed the point. Wullie, you asked how much debt all the other clubs in the world must be building up - the answer is, a f***ing obscene amount. Just in the Premier League, only four clubs made a profit in 2010 according to Deloitte, and two of those were essentially break-even. In that climate, speculating to accumulate becomes impossible. So do you see 16 of 20 Premier League clubs going to the wall? Do you think your own Spurs will go bust because you've spent money and bought good players? Your point is perfectly valid, they are running up debt but that's football at the moment and that debt will improve them on the field. If Modric goes will you be happy if that money subsequently vanishes into nowhere and you start scrabbling round for free transfers and release clauses, and the noises out of Spurs are that your aim is to finish 10th? Saying you've got a plan to keep the wage bill down and not be stung for transfers is all very well in isolation but football clubs don't exist in isolation, they exist, in both our cases, in a league with 19 other teams who will all be spending money to achieve success on the pitch. Do you see our "model" as one which is likely to get us back to Europe and back to the Champions League? I'm not sure sunderland's accounts are good to compare with because they're s*** as well. At the end of the day, I don't care about finances or figures or accounts, all I care about is success at NUFC, on the field. All the financial stability in the world means nothing to me if we finish 10th every year. It's crazy to take such a casual attitude towards debt. If you continue to run at a loss, your debt will increase and likewise the interest payments. At some stage, you have to start balancing the books. At some stage? We've been doing it for four years now. When do you think our competitors will begin to do it? we've been balancing the books for the last four years ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Out of interest what is Spurs net spend like over the last few years? O can't imagine it's a massive outlay as they seem to do well with sales and have sold a couple of big players for sizeable sums. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Out of interest what is Spurs net spend like over the last few years? O can't imagine it's a massive outlay as they seem to do well with sales and have sold a couple of big players for sizeable sums. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TPZgl55Up5I/AAAAAAAAClA/Rbu29VBM6lo/s400/2%2BSpurs%2BProfit.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 We might need it for January. Made me laugh as well. I'm sure they have spouted during most January's that there is no value in that window Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Sorry I'm on my phone and a bit dim but is that showing huge profits on player sales (especially 2009)? That can't be right? Where does it take into account players purchased. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Out of interest what is Spurs net spend like over the last few years? O can't imagine it's a massive outlay as they seem to do well with sales and have sold a couple of big players for sizeable sums. They've spent £95m net, £2m less than Chelsea, works out at £19m per season since 2006. And people reckon we operate like them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Out of interest what is Spurs net spend like over the last few years? O can't imagine it's a massive outlay as they seem to do well with sales and have sold a couple of big players for sizeable sums. They've spent £95m net, £2m less than Chelsea, works out at £19m per season since 2006. And people reckon we operate like them. According to that chart they've made a net profit on transfers every year. Unless I'm reading it wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Yeah that's quite a lot I seemed to think they hadn't spent all that much given their sales (£30m Berbatov, £16m Carrick, about £7m to loan Keane to Liverpool for 6 months etc.. ) apart from Modric I couldn't remember any major outlay on a player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Out of interest what is Spurs net spend like over the last few years? O can't imagine it's a massive outlay as they seem to do well with sales and have sold a couple of big players for sizeable sums. They've spent £95m net, £2m less than Chelsea, works out at £19m per season since 2006. And people reckon we operate like them. According to that chart they've made a net profit on transfers every year. Unless I'm reading it wrong. http://i.imgur.com/89DFY.png Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 then from the same site there is this... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TPZjU5e-usI/AAAAAAAACmo/Muaw20kC9Qs/s400/15%2BSpurs%2BTransfer%2BLeague.jpg you work it out. wheres quayside when he's needed ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Out of interest what is Spurs net spend like over the last few years? O can't imagine it's a massive outlay as they seem to do well with sales and have sold a couple of big players for sizeable sums. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TPZgl55Up5I/AAAAAAAAClA/Rbu29VBM6lo/s400/2%2BSpurs%2BProfit.jpg Doesn't this chart state a profit from player sales every year? I don't know what the facts are, I don't care TBH, but it does say that doesn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Yeah that's quite a lot I seemed to think they hadn't spent all that much given their sales (£30m Berbatov, £16m Carrick, about £7m to loan Keane to Liverpool for 6 months etc.. ) apart from Modric I couldn't remember any major outlay on a player. Gomes £10m, Bentley £15m, Pav £14m, Palacios £14m, VdV £8m, Sandro £6m, Crouch £9m, Bassong £8m, Hutton £9m. To name a few. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Reporter on SSN there saying Spurs are pretty much powerless to keep Modric because he's only on £35k per week and they won't break their salary structure to keep him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Parka Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 A good summary in case anyone hasn't heard it: Newcastle manager Alan Pardew was interviewed on BBC Radio Newcastle's Total Sport programme on Monday evening and spoke at length about many topics, also answering questions from callers. There weren't many great revelations but he spoke very much as if he expected Jose Enrique to depart (although he hoped he wouldn't), Joey Barton to stay and how excited he was about his new French signings. There were questions about the Andy Carroll money, the departure of Kevin Nolan and even one about Hatem Ben Arfa's squad number and Pardew was generally fairly candid but occasionally cagey about his and employer's future plans. After an opening "Bonjour", Pardew said he was confident that the new signings will bed in well, as they all speak degree of English. He stated that John Carver and Steve Stone, in particular, will be overseeing their integration into the squad, ensuring the new French acquisitions didn't become too cliquey. He also acknowledged that although there was always a risk with new players, the extensive research undertaken by Graham Carr and his staff, as well as having information on Ba from his contacts at West Ham, should ensure the players will be a success on Tyneside. In regards to Enrique, Pardew suggested the full-back wanted Champions League football and although he "hoped it would fall our way", the club do have a contingency plan should the left back leave, as many expect him to. He also claimed that Gael Clichy’s move from Arsenal to Man City didn't help the situation. He also asserted that Kevin Nolan wouldn’t have been as strong a leader as he was last year, had he not been happy with his current contract and not been playing regular first team football. Pardew said he would have loved to have Nolan for the next two years but the club simply couldn’t give him the five year extension he was looking for and as a consequence, he accepted he had to leave and that the player "wanted to leave". He also believed that although there are no obvious candidates to replace Kevin's standing both on and off the pitch, "someone always steps up" and played down the role of a captain, claiming "we’re not talking cricket here". He also mentioned Carver and Stone again as people who can take on added responsibility off the pitch, claiming his captains in the past such as Nigel Reo-Coker didn’t take on added responsibility off the pitch. Pardew also addressed the ongoing situation over Joey Barton's contract position, claiming that he believed he had a good working relationship with last season's stand-in skipper and that he thought he would be here for the season and hoped a new deal could be reached at the end of the campaign, using the old cliché 'a year is a long time in football'. He also talked about changing the style of football from last season, hoping to have more control in games by using new signing Cabaye and Barton as a way of keeping possession, as well as adding more 'creative flair' with his summer signings, including Ben Arfa and forgotten man Dan Gosling. He admitted he hadn’t seen much of the former Everton man on the training ground but that he was coming back stronger than ever, after undergoing rehabilitation in America. Pardew suggested there would be at least one more offensive addition in the summer, although not necessarily before the first game of the season and that there was no agreement in place for PSG striker Mevlut Erdinc. He also suggested that the expected new signing wouldn’t necessarily wear the number 9 shirt, which will be given to someone. Alan Shearer and Andy Carroll were cited as typical examples of the type of forward that he believes should fit the shirt but we fear he was hinting - with the local lad angle - that it would be given to Shola Ameobi.... Pardew attempted to deal with rumours that Xisco, Leon Best and Nile Ranger had been told to find new clubs by saying he needed to speak privately with those players first, hinting that they could in fact stay at the club, as long as they were prepared to be squad players. The most pressing issue in many fans' eyes is whether the £35 million received for Carroll would in fact be spent and Pardew reaffirmed the club line that "the money will stay in the club". However, he suggested that fans shouldn’t attempt to do the maths as it would fall 'way short', claiming agents fees, wages and investment in the training ground would mean all the money wouldn't go simply on transfer fees. Our own personal take on that is that there should be plenty of season ticket money, TV revenue, sponsorship income etc. to meet those running costs and we refer back to Pardew's words on the day after Carroll's departure, which seemed crystal clear to us: "The one thing I said to Mike yesterday was: 'Look, if this boy is going to go, this money has to be reinvested in the team, all of it, and he has assured me of that. For the Newcastle fan, that is the most important message I can give today, that all that money will be used.'" Thanks for this Dave. Sounds fair all of it. Its not surprising either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Out of interest what is Spurs net spend like over the last few years? O can't imagine it's a massive outlay as they seem to do well with sales and have sold a couple of big players for sizeable sums. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TPZgl55Up5I/AAAAAAAAClA/Rbu29VBM6lo/s400/2%2BSpurs%2BProfit.jpg Doesn't this chart state a profit from player sales every year? I don't know what the facts are, I don't care TBH, but it does say that doesn't it? Does that chart include their own spent transfer fees though? Cant see what that would be other than "other expenses". Which for 2009 that would mean that they would have had to make 90m in players sold to achieve a 56m profit. So i think the 56m is purely what they got on selling players, not an overall profit on transfers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 With the French influx and negative net spend it looks like we are on the Arsenal model then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 With the French influx and negative net spend it looks like we are on the Arsenal model then Gerrin!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Out of interest what is Spurs net spend like over the last few years? O can't imagine it's a massive outlay as they seem to do well with sales and have sold a couple of big players for sizeable sums. They've spent £95m net, £2m less than Chelsea, works out at £19m per season since 2006. And people reckon we operate like them. According to that chart they've made a net profit on transfers every year. Unless I'm reading it wrong. You are reading it right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Out of interest what is Spurs net spend like over the last few years? O can't imagine it's a massive outlay as they seem to do well with sales and have sold a couple of big players for sizeable sums. They've spent £95m net, £2m less than Chelsea, works out at £19m per season since 2006. And people reckon we operate like them. According to that chart they've made a net profit on transfers every year. Unless I'm reading it wrong. You are reading it right. what about the other chart from the same site that has them with a net spend of 95mill over the same period ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now